Compliance with eligibility conditions and submission of mandatory documents (such as a caste certificate from a specific competent authority) at the prescribed time in a recruitment advertisement is essential and cannot be waived by subsequent submission of documents.

NAFR

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25/03/2026

1 Heard Mr. Devashish Tiwari, appeared through video conferencing along with Mr. Shiv Sewak, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal.

2 On due consideration, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed. Delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3 The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4617 of 2021. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Hon’ble Court with the following prayer:-

“a) Allow the present Writ Appeal;

b) Set aside and quash the Impugned Judgment dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 4617 of 2021;

c) Set aside and quash the order dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P1) passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the candidature of the Appellant;

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to:

i) Accept the caste certificate dated 09.01.1996 issued by Naib Tehsildar as valid;

ii) Issue appointment letter to the Appellant for the post of English Teacher Category-T Cadre in pursuance of the offer of appointment dated 21.01.2021.

iii) Grant all consequential service benefits including seniority, salary, and arrears from the date appointment should have been issued;

e) Grant permission to the Appellant to file additional documents (Annexures A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6) which were not part of the record before the learned Single Judge;

f) Award costs of the present proceedings to the Appellant; AND/OR

g) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

4 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Jyoti Rai, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the post of English Teacher (T-Cadre) pursuant to the recruitment advertisement issued in March 2019 by the Directorate of Public Instruction, Government of Chhattisgarh. Having successfully cleared the selection process, she was called for document verification on 21.01.2021, wherein her documents, including a caste certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar (dated 09.01.1996), were duly scrutinized and found complete, and she was accordingly extended an offer of appointment. However, subsequently, by order dated 13.08.2021, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had failed to produce a permanent caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), as required under the terms of the advertisement.

5 Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 4617 of 2021 before this Hon’ble Court; however, the same came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10.12.2025, holding that the appellant had failed to comply with Clauses 7 and 8 of the advertisement, as the requisite caste certificate from the competent authority was not produced at the time of verification, notwithstanding that the appellant subsequently obtained such certificate on 09.02.2022. The appellant contends that her original caste certificate was validly issued by a competent authority and had been accepted by the Respondents during verification, and that she was prevented from obtaining a fresh certificate earlier due to an administrative embargo, and therefore, the rejection of her candidature is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2025 is liable to be set aside as it suffers from patent illegality and non-application of mind. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant’s candidature was liable to be rejected for non-prod